[rescue] Re: [geeks] THIS. MAKES. ME. SICK.

mike dombrowski rescue at sunhelp.org
Thu Jun 14 23:40:02 CDT 2001

>> What does this prove? No sane admin runs an out of box install. Even 
>> OpenBSD needs tweaking to get it going
>I can run a stock OpenBSD install on the Internet, not behind a 
>And not have to worry about it getting hacked.  I could use the 
>sendmail (which in its installed config is secure), though to be 
honest I do
>install postfix (all of 4 commands to type to install, configure, and
>replace sendmail).

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough,  I mean tweaks along the lines of 
setting up secure anon ftp or protecting Samba and Apache. Even then 
OpenBSD comes out on top in regard of minimal amount of doing stuff to 
get it secure. I'll agree that OpenBSD's base security 0wns, it's what 
I use for my firewall and many of my workstations/servers. 

>> You can't do this either. Quadruple the ram and go with a Duron and 
>> starts getting fair. Compare OpenBSD and Solaris 8 on an LX with 
>> minimum amount of ram for Solaris. OpenBSD will beat Solaris handily 
>> terms of response time, speed, etc. Does this make Solaris bad? No, 
>Stop and think about what you are saying here... I need a GB of RAM 
and a
>800MHz CPU to have decent performance with W2K?  Is that what you are 

Nitpick, 4x 128 = 512mb. My point was more along the lines of sizing 
the box to fit the OS, IMHO the described system is too weak to run NT. 
And yes, for any real uses of NT I'd spec at least 512mb ram and a very 
nice processor. 

>In comparison, a 450MHz machine with 128MB RAM is like an LX?
>Are you sure you're on Devin's side :-) ?


>> just means you're incorrectly pairing the OS and hardware. Try this 
>> comparison; Quad Xeon, 2gb ram, scsi OS disks and fibre channel data 
>> disks for massive SQL serving, 2k vs. OpenBSD. Watch 2k beat down 
>> OpenBSD, does this prove anything either?
>OK, fair enough, OBSD doesn't do SMP.  If I stuck Linux on there what 
do you
>think would happen?

Okay, I move my box up to 16gb ram and 32x Xeons. :P. This is a silly 
argument to get into, my point was that OpenBSD is better on some 
hardware, NT on other hardware. Anyway, I'd expect Linux to win some 
tests and NT to win some tests.

>That is not what I said; if you still have the thread, re-read it.

I'm tired and cranky, sorry if I misunderstood your point but I'm too 
tired to reread the thread and I have to goto bed now cause I'm going 
stuff with Maria early tomorrow. This is gonna be my last post to this 
thread unless really interesting stuff comes up, it's nice now but I 
feel nothing good can come of it, nobody's opinions are going to change 
blah blah blah


More information about the rescue mailing list